In regards to eating meat

[yossarian]

I did read your criticisms a long time ago. It sounds like you know more about nutrition than me. Maybe the sources I've read that said 25g of plant protein is sufficient were wrong. I'm glad to be corrected by the experts. I don't know enough to prove it one way or the other. I've always been a practitioner not a researcher. Back in the day I decided to drop my diet experimentation but my beliefs are still paleolithic. The 25g of plant protein thing came from some experts I had read. Maybe they were wrong. Good thing you're here to protect people.

If you're actually a scientific expert and not promoting your own fad diet called "listen to your body" then that's great. I think scientific experts with proven credentials should be given special responsibilities and extra credibility.

Shrug. That's my position.

Yes, nutrigenomics exists. Just like geology exists. Or physics exists. Or genetics exists. They exist in this reality. Are you saying these are debatable statements? That these sciences might not exist?

Are scientific facts unquestionable truth? I dont think so.

No, I was saying it's controversial. The nutrition field is extremely controversial and many of your statements, as far as I know, are considered extremely contentious. I'm not a professional in this area but my info has come from professionals. Maybe you're right and there is no controversy. But that's just science anyway. It's still legit and valuable to criticize science even if you're wrong.

The difference is in which of the infinite variety of qualities we are choosing to express in this moment. We each carry all of them within us.

So is this one a scientific fact or just your opinion? You didn't say which. Some people might be confused.

Right and wrong are only relative to a purpose.

Do you have a purpose to have a healthy body? If so, then it is right for me to tell you that you need a minimum of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight, and it is wrong for me to tell you that your body requires less than it actually does.

I thought your moral philosophy was based on intention?

Then, what is the difference between a fanatic who happens to be correct, a fanatic who happens to be incorrect, and a fanatic who blows up children with bombs? Do all three have the same emotional orientation? If so, what causes only one of them to be violent?

Beliefs and values.

But what are we even talking about?

Yes, you're right. I assert that nutrigenomics exists, which is the study of how foods interact with DNA in the human body. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true.

But you see in 2009 I believed the same thing. I could say this:

"I assert that raw veganism is the best diet. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true."

So what's the difference?

But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

So- you're telling me that the way life on earth is set up is such that every person requires the exact same foods to be healthy? Wouldn't that be kind of odd?

Is your official argument that it would be "too odd" to be true?

Doesn't seem odd to me. Humans are a species who evolved for a specific environment. Most species all eat the same food.

It is saying that the human body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals in order to function on a biochemical basis, and if you are interested in your body functioning correctly, then it is right for you to ensure that you are getting all 23 of these vitamins and minerals from your food sources, which cannot be done with fruit alone without ingesting extreme excess of sugar.

If one does not truly care about having a healthy body, then it is not wrong of them to ignore basic biochemistry in their food choices.

So your fanaticism is about these 23 vitamins and minerals then. The purpose of my rhetoric was to try to point out to you that you are asserting that something is unquestionably true. This is similar to what I was doing. The only difference between us is that I was wrong and you are right (hypothetically :p).

Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

There is no attack. Only the observation that your words have made a major impact to the 100+ pages which constitute this thread. For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009. You are responsible for your own words, as am I, and there is no way for us to know in this moment what that impact is.

Personally, I believe that to the degree we are both being authentic to our values in this moment, is to the degree it will have a positive impact. Whether you or I agree is kind of a side item. But ultimately- I don't know.

I haven't read the thread. What impact did my words have? You really think advocating for my diet on an internet forum has damaged humanity?

If your arguments are so strong I'm sure you handily defeated my words and everybody saw how right you were.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

Do you suppose that fanatics want to be fanatics? In other words, is that a genuine expression of who they are? Do you believe there is a way to heal this?

You're all over the map.

I do absolutely believe that fanatics are genuinely expressing themselves. I believe all expressions are genuine. I do not believe that non-genuine expressions exist. This is one of my fundamental psychological views. Fanatics can change over time like anyone and this change is also a genuine expression.

The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

So you have changed your moral position since then? How so?

Why do I constantly feel like a baseball being coaxed onto the T-ball stand?

I have changed my moral position slightly. I've decided that ensuring the health of the human body is more important than preserving the lives of animals. I still think it's wrong to kill animals but I also think the value of a thriving human life outweighs the life of an animal. Until conventional science recommends veganism and social norms make it practical, therefore, I'm gonna be conventional.

In comparison, I used to think that preserving the lives of animals trumped any minor health concerns and practical concerns. I also thought that the risk to the body was worth it to preserve the lives of animals. So my values have shifted and my morals along with them.

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

So then, it is more important to you that people are affected, and not so much how they are affected?

I believed I was doing a service to humanity, just like you believe you are. You believe you are redressing a karmic imbalance.

What use is your knowledge if you can't convince anyone? If no one will read your arguments? I absolutely think being persuasive is important and part of that is being entertaining and getting people's attention. I believe I have a multitude of psychodynamics inside of me, some conflicting.

So basically I care about both of those.

I hope my participation in this cross-examination counts as service to humanity.

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

Do you know that this truth and meaning is something to be found within you?

I think this is a bigoted statement that devalues the creation. Also you didn't mention whether this is "opinion" or "fact."